___________

In today's SkepChick quickies, there was a link to an article called "Patrick Swayze's Misguided Faith in Mainstream Medicine" on a website called Natural News. The article was written by this week's 'tard, one Tony Isaacs, who identifies himself as a "citizen journalist" and a "natural health advocate and researcher and the author of books and articles about natural health."

In this article, Mr. Isaacs berates Patrick Swayze for his comments in the recent Barbara Walter interview where Mr. Swayze commented that he was taking "specific immune system Chinese herbs," but says he hasn't tried many alternative therapies because he learned that if "you feed your body, you feed the insatiable voracious appetite of the cancer." Mr. Swayze is following a regimen of chemotherapy and an experimental drug called vatalanib for the treatment of his disease. While he's realistic about his prognosis, he's continuing to fight the good fight.

Mr. Isaacs, however, appears to have gone off the deep end. He believes that modern medicine should just get off their ass and cure cancer already, and thinks Mr. Swayze is clearly being brainwashed by modern medicine and making poor decisions based on his M.D.'s advice. You see, if modern medicine weren't so interested in making the big bucks off of the suffering of innocents, then they'd reveal the secret cure to cancer and we'd all prance off in the meadows with butterflies and puppies.

Stupid Patrick Swayze. Why the hell would he choose to follow his doctor's advice instead of a "natural practitioner?" Dumbass.

Real answers are always more complex than the practitioners of woo and would have us believe, and the motivations of "big pharma" and others are usually less complex than the conspiracy theorists would like us to believe. In this case, we get Two! Two! Two 'tards in one!

Attention, 'tards! Big Pharma and the modern medical complex is not some caricature of Snidely Whiplash, twirling their mustaches and trying to determine how to best eke out more money on the backs of people's suffering and death. I personally know a number of folks who work in this industry, and their motivation is (gasp!) altruistic. It's not that a for-profit company is against making money - far from it. But the scientists employed by "Mainstream Medicine" weren't fished out of a pool of evil by Big Pharma for the express purpose of keeping the "truth" from the masses. The scientists who form the basis of this industry do the work they do for the betterment of mankind.

So, Mr. Isaacs, feel free to keep your conspiracy theories and non-peer reviewed speculation to yourself. You're no better than the National Enquirer chastising his smoking habits, and nearly as classless.

43
comments:

That was like when Tom Cruise went all postal on Brooke Shields on taking drugs for her depression.

I have a couple of friends who honestly believe that modern medicine is doing more harm than good. There are some instances where I would agree. For example, while ADHD is real, given what I had one friend go through I think it's over-diagnosed with an an attitude that the schools and society needs good little drones. And we definitely over-prescribe some drugs.

In addition, if we ate properly, exercised, and treated our bodies a little more like temple, we'd have less disease.

But our current life span is a result, to a great extent, of modern medicine, especially antibiotics and vaccinations. My mom would have died a long time ago without the modern medicine.

So, hey, criticisms of some aspects of modern medicine are legitimate. But the "modern medicine is one giant conspiracy" crowd is about as knowledgeable and rational as a pooh-flinging monkey.

Patrick Swayze has always been one of my favorites (yum, Road House). I was pleased to see how well he was doing, considering everything he's going through.

His natural stength and athleticism have obviously helped him fight the cancer, and he is very in tune with his body and how it works. He's keeping everything in balance.

There is a lot to be said for that, as well as a positive mental attitude. It's working for him and he's survived a year with a cancer that at stage 4 (when his was discovered), usually kills within months, if not weeks.

Patrick and his wife spent a great deal of time researching treatments, both conventional and alternative. He's found a combination that, for now, is working for HIM. Plus, he's doing well enough to try one of the new chemo regimens. And it appears to be working as well. Patrick realistically said he may make it for 5 years. The fact that the treatment so far is working better on him than others, the researchers will want to see why.

Do I think modern medicine and research can find a cure for cancer, yes. Have they, not quite yet, but they are making progress. Look at the work with HPV and identifying gene strands that activate cancer. Could they move faster, maybe. Should they move faster, some, but not at the risk of doing more harm than good.

Should Mr. Isaacs ever be diagnosed with something as vile as pancreatic cancer, he is free to choose whatever treatment he feels is right for himself. That is his right and I hope he would be spared the horrible deaths a couple friends through.

But I will say that it is a distressingly recurrent aspect for human nature that something that works too well is taken for granted. then when it fails, or is tested to its limits, the people who maintain it suddenly become scapegoats.

Look, for example at the rolling blackout in the Northeast from a while back. Modern electrical powered life is nothing short of a miracle. The guys who keep this antiquated grid humming despite its horrific condition are heroes. But suddenly the electric companies were eeeevil when everyone's lights went out.

Yeah, because, you know, all those Big Pharma companies wouldn't make a frickin' boat load of money from just making the Super Amazing Cancer Cure in a single pill available. Only $2000. Yeah, they'd be making them day and night to keep up with demand.

Vince, it's been my experience that it's mostly the parents that have their kids diagnosed with ADHD (either to medicate them or to gain them special considerations for test taking).

And John, I deal with First Energy a lot. Let's just say that my criticism didn't start with the blackout and it certainly didn't end with it. They're doing better, you know, since we escrowed the entire county's electrical bill four years back to force them to the table. And in another two years we should have the dedicated line they knew (through internal documents and their own admission during a meeting) they identified the need for twelve years ago. At least they're fixing the street lights (that we lease) now. That only took a few years of struggle and two newspaper articles. And don't get me started on their attempted (highway robbery) rate hike this past year that finally exposed our state PUCO for the rubber stamp they became.

Sorry, after fighting them for six years, I have very little respect for them as a company. We finally have some good people in internal positions to help us, but that just means we only have to prod them a few times to get action (currently waiting for a letter outlining their refusal to replace some equipment after a power outage so we can have our insurance cover some of the cost, decision was made two months ago).

I am going to school right now with plenty of people from Abbot and Takeda. People should understand that these companies are BUSINESSES first. Secondly, few people understand and care HOW MUCH MONEY the pharma's are investing in R&D for the drugs, and the competition involved. Even fewer people understand how much time it takes for the FDA to approve a drug. There might very well be a cure for cancer (although I personally doubt that a single miracle cure can exist for a sickness related to the human gene), it's just on the backlog at FDA somewhere.

Well Steve, like Janiece and modern medicine, I don't think that the electrical power companies are above criticism, especially in the way that they are regulated and forced to operate, and in the way that the resultant monopolies give good service to the areas with the most political pull. My power goes out far too often for me not to have a beef with the power company. But that rolling blackout? It was bound to happen, given our grid.

My college roommate was a EE, and I hung around with the power engineers a lot (best quote from power lab after a shock: "my tongue tastes funny"). I know what those guys do, and they do a lot with the very little they are given.

Y'know, I think a lot of this boils down to something I've though for a long time.

Large corporations are at the best amoral and at the worst evil.

Individuals within those corporations are moral and good individuals, however, when responsibility is diffused throughout a corporation and does not rest with any one individual, you get Steve's power company or the Ford Pinto or the current evil of the week.

And I can give you horror stories of small companies cutting corners (and regulators turning a blind eye because politicians are pushing them to "encourage competition") when large companies were doing the right thing.

Sometimes having more money give you the luxury of being more moral. And sometimes it just makes you greedy for more money.

Michelle, that would bring business to a complete halt. If it can be shown that the higher ups had knowledge, sure. But I can name at least half a dozen ways in manufacturing alone that someone could do something bad and lie to the higher-ups.

If a plant manager in India cuts corners, violates company policy, and buys milk form a "no-buy" supplier in China, then sells ti to Turkey how is the CEO or CFO of the multi-national that owns that plant going to know? How does punishing them solve the problem? And the CFO's job is very, very narrow - to keep the books filed with the SEC honest. He / she already is criminally liable for that.

By that reasoning, the shareholders should be found guilty too, because in fact they are the owners of record.

No, they shouldn't be held accountable to someone in the mail room sending a letter to the wrong place, but the ethics and morality of a company ultimately come down to the man or woman who is the head of the company.

A CEO should ultimately be responsible for every last employee in the company. Not that they should hire everyone themselves, but that the need a line of trust in the hiring process that those who do the hiring are going to retain people who are trustworthy.

No, a CEO is not ultimately responsible for putting melamine in milk, but he or she is responsible for choosing to do business with a specific company. He or she is responsible for making sure their product is tested for safety.

As far as the CFOs, how many companies right now are going under? Who is being held responsible for this? No, an individual cannot be held accountable for the economy, but they can be held accountable for managing funds in a secure manner.

If you choose to place profit over security, then you are going to have to pay the piper when the tune ends.

Right now, no one is taking responsibility, and that state of affairs is unacceptable.

Mr Isaacs as "Tard of the week"!!This only illustrates your ignorance of the causes of cancer, and where many alternatives to mainstream oncology have been very successful in treating and curing this disease.I do not doubt for one moment that the majority of medical personnel only have altruistic and humanitarian motives, but oncology is largely a complete and utter failure."Most people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer are told that they may have less than 1 year to live"....CANCER RESEARCH UK

I'm sure all those cancer survivors out there (including members of my family) would disagree.

Of course you have peer reviewed studies using the scientific method published in reputable journals to back up your assertions that "many alternatives to mainstream oncology have been very successful in treating and curing this disease?"

Sorry, chrisb. This is my space, not your personal playground where you can post out of context quotes. IF you have the data I requested (i.e., peer reviewed studies using the scientific method published in reputable journals to back up your assertions that "many alternatives to mainstream oncology have been very successful in treating and curing this disease?"), then you you can post the links here and I will not delete you comment. I'll even follow the links and change my opinion if the studies prove your point.

I don't plan on having to change my opinion, however - because the studies don't exist, and you and Tony Isaacs appear to be equally full of shit.

Mr. Isaacs was in no way bashing Patrick Swayze for choosing standard medicine in his path for healing. He was merely pointing out that he Mr. Swayze would have stood a better chance using alternative measures. I know of people diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer alive three years later using alternative means. This is an impossibility with standard medicine. So..... Tell those people that natural healing doesn't work.

In reply to this blog, I am going to reply by copying and pasting Mr. Isaacs reply to a similar post such as yours in another forum:

Christ on a crutch. Seems like the fans of some of these wackier 'tard winners just keep showing up MONTHS after the initial post was published.

I suppose in this particular case it's because Mr. Swayze is now dead, and the wackadoodles are convinced that if he'd only taken THEIR snake oil, then he'd be cured! Hurray!

Mayluella, I'm still waiting for those peer-reviewed studies, decently constructed using the scientific method, published in a reputable medical journal that proves Mr. Isaacs' assertions. Shit, I'd even settle for a peer reviewed, well constructed study in a non-reputable medical journal if it was compelling enough. And yet, Mr. Isaacs and his supporters can't produce such a thing - only self-aggrandizing "articles" published on blogs, forums and self-promoting web sites.

Please note that I'm not an oncologist, and I make no claims to the efficacy of specified treatments in the case of Mr. Swayze or any other person suffering from cancer. The point being, of course, that Mr. Isaacs isn't an oncologist either, and none of the information provided to date indicates he's anything but a practitioner of woo. The plural of "anecdotes" isn't "evidence," in spite of someone's wishful thinking in wanting it so.

Unless you (and the rest of the woo peddlers) have ACTUAL STUDIES, then please do not comment here again. You people are making me tired.

This particular wackier fan of your "tard winner" appeared only after being made aware of your post some months later.

Your flippancy concerning those of us who care about matters such as life and death is quite astounding, and where I am personally someone who overcame a death sentence from Leukemia over 30 years ago thru alt' methods, and after Mainstream had failed me. There are thousands more like me.

It is hardly surprising that you adhere to the dogma of peer-reviewed studies as the only evidence that you will accept, but I chose life over death, as have thousands of others like me by choosing the alt' route, when mainstream have failed them.

The only real proof that counts is in the particular snake-oil that you care to choose and has been proven to be efficacious via living testimony.

Yeah, chrisb - you're right. I don't give a good goddamn about whether or not people stricken with cancer live or die, and THAT'S the point of my flippancy.

::eye roll::

Get over yourself.

I have no issue those who believe that whatever treatments they choose "cured" them of their disease. You want to believe that, go ahead - you're presumably an adult, and what you believe or don't believe has no bearing on my life whatsoever.

But you're still full of shit, and you can't reasonably expect to believe crap like this without people calling you to task and laughing at you:

The only real proof that counts is in the particular snake-oil that you care to choose and has been proven to be efficacious via living testimony.

I'm unsure how you can be so astoundingly ignorant that you believe the Scientific Method "doesn't count." Really? It "doesn't count?" So all those incredible discoveries made over the years using it "don't count?" So, in order to be consistent in your thinking, you clearly you don't use clean water, or technology, or electricity...oh, wait.

So it's only YOUR particular snake oil that's immune from proving its efficacy in a meaningful way.

I'm glad that you're no longer ill, however that occurrence came about. But the claim that your individual experience "proves" alt'med "cured" you doesn't mean much in the world of actual science. Sloppy thinking much?

Janeice,just one last post, unless you decide to censor this one as well.Open skies.........closed minds.

It is not a question of belief Janeice, which implies faith and the "hope" that something works in practice.I am referring to actual, tangible and successful results which have no need for the "scientific method" as you call it.

I agree with you: this "belief" has no bearing on your life whatsoever, but you have involved yourself in a publicized criticism of a respected health-researcher who has seen these "beliefs" work with his own eyes and experience, as I have.To criticize and admonish someone where you have no knowledge of what you are talking about, is folly and ignorance that is actually beyond belief. I am full of shit? But that is a very educated state of shit, with two degrees obtained from respected Universities.

The science of today is largely superseded by the science of tomorrow: the medical profession for example recommended smoking cigarettes in the 1950's!!! So no, I do not believe in the scientific method endorsed by the medical profession as they are dominated and totally influenced by Big Pharma.My individual experience of recovery from cancer and other people who have recovered from chronic and life-threatening diseases is not isolated or unique, but as a collective whole shared by the many in Alt' medicine.You have a lot to learn it seems, if you open your mind from dogma.

First of all, "censorship" is an act performed by government. You are insinuating that my refusal to allow you to copy and paste your "respected researcher's" quotes onto my private space is somehow inappropriate, because you're entitled to evangelize your beliefs here.

You're not, of course - you have no more right to insist on "equal time" in my private cyber space than you would in my private home. Nothing I do here prevents you from publishing your beliefs on your own space.

So evidently your "two degrees from respected Universities" lacked a basic civics course. Please also note the incredible hypocrisy in your claim to be "educated." Presumably a "respected University" would be a proponent of the Scientific Method (which you claim is outdated and irrelevant), and yet you use that association to "prove" that your dedication to alt'med is based on your "education."

Second, your accusation of a "closed mind" isn't exactly original. Skeptics have long been accused of being closed-minded by those who think the plural of "anecdotes" is "evidence," and quite frankly, it's tiresome and stupid. "Big Pharma" didn't invent the Scientific Method, and yet you contend they're responsible for its continued use by the "medical establishment."

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone who's advocating the use of a particular modality to have to prove the modality actually works. Saying "it worked for me!" doesn't prove anything other than (maybe) it worked for you. The Scientific Method works. It's not dogma - it's a process by which false hypotheses are eliminated. The process itself isn't "contaminated" by its association with mainstream medicine - there's nothing to prevent Mr. Isaacs and the rest of the alt'med crowd from using it to prove their assertions. NOTHING.

And yet, you and the rest choose not to do so. As I noted above, I'd be willing to look at any actual EVIDENCE that your modality works. It doesn't have to be published in the NEJM - but any studies have to be well constructed, and include a double-blind aspect. If you have such evidence, I'm willing to take a look, and I'm willing to change my opinion if I'm wrong - part of being a skeptic is the willingness to change your mind in the face of evidence.

If you don't have any evidence, then please quit wasting my time and my bandwidth. Because your assertions are nothing but hyperbole, and I have other things to do today.

OK.Our definition of evidence differs, but I had the last laugh by defeating death at the hands of Mainstream after being given 6 months at best.The only evidence we should ever need is the efficacy of the protocol you are undertaking in the cure of life-threatening diseases and if that works in practice and results in normal longevity: just ask anyone who has undergone the Max Gerson Protocol, which is scorned on by allopathy, but works in practice against cancers, and of whom Albert Schweitzer stated that "he was the most eminent medical genius of his generation".But of course you know better than he.

This is my last post here. In reply to your request for the proper studies, I can not word it any better than what Tony Isaacs stated in another forum. Did you read the link in my prior post? I will copy and paste his reply to this particular question below.

I beg to disagree with you..... Modern medicine does not work. How can you question Chris' assertion as to his healing, saying he believes that he is healed. The man has been cancer free for 30+ years. As for myself, I don't have cancer, but after being treated for 20+ years for various conditions with modern medicine, I found natural healing and viola! I am fine now and I do not rely on one single prescription medication. Mine and Chris' are not isolated stories. We see true healing daily. The basis for our assertions are the people still alive who turned to natural healing after doctors told them there was no more to be done and told them to go home to get their affairs in order. They would not accept hospice. Living breathing people, and it happens every day. Now, the reply to your question:

How do you propose that records be obtained of all the people who have educated themselves and/or self-treated and been successful or not? How do you get altmed practitioners to publish their data, when most are operating outside the approved mainstream arena and would be persecuted and villified if they published such data, as has happened time and again with those who have done so?

Mainstream medicine is a trillion dollar a year plus industry who has unlimited funds to publish their massaged data and their studies, ther results of which are bought and sold to insure favorable reports on behalf of the funders. Science has been bought off and corrupted by the greed of the mainstream medicine industry - greed that is clearly shown in my article.

Mainstream studies and data served us well with Vioxx didn't it?

The precious data you refer to that is used by mainstream doctors has been misused to the point of gross negligence and deception, as I clearly demonstrated in my other article I referred you to.

The crux of the matter is that you insist on discounting the Scientific Method for reasons of your own, in direct contradiction of your own words:

The only evidence we should ever need is the efficacy of the protocol you are undertaking in the cure of life-threatening diseases...

The Scientific Method provides EXACTLY what you are advocating, in a repeatable, proven, logically sound way. But I guess because it's not proven that your sacred cow is efficacious, then it "doesn't matter" and should be ignored.

Your fondness for logical fallacy is only exceeded by your credulity, I'm afraid. Please come back when your "arguments" aren't laced with both. As I noted, I have other things to do today (like study for my cool "Breakthroughs in Science" class), and pointing out your inability to argue in a meaningful and logical way really isn't on the list.

I'm really quite tempted to close this comment thread, since Mr. Isaacs' fans STILL haven't provided any acceptable evidence to support his claims, but I'm going beyond a reasonable doubt here in order to be fair.

Just to be clear: ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE IS NOT ANECDOTES. It's repeatable experiments based on a hypothesis, using scientifically acceptable study procedures to prove your hypothesis. I'm tired of discussing this, because Mr. Isaacs' proponents aren't saying anything new, nor are they bringing evidence to the table.

IF someone has acceptable evidence to prove these therapies work, please provide the link and I'll look at the evidence. Otherwise, I'm going to start deleting comments out of hand.

I did in fact read Mr. Isaacs' comments that you linked to previously. As I noted before, it contained no evidence, only anecdotes and self-aggrandizing propaganda.

Please also note that I did not dismiss chrisb's claim to be 'cured' by alt'med out of hand. I told him that an anecdotal cure story did not prove his hypothesis.

As to your question regarding why the information I'm requesting can't be published, to that I raise the bullshit flag.

You MIGHT be able to convince me that the NEJM would not publish such a study in an effort to maintain the status quo. I understand the dynamics of groupthink and the jealousy that pervades academic circles. But here's the thing: Big Pharma and the "establishment" does not have a corner on the scientific method. There is nothing to stop your practitioners from conducting studies of their own, and self-publishing their results.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want the general population to think you've got a corner on the truth, then prove it. Science is required to do so, and I will not hold the bar lower for you and yours.

As to Vioxx (and thamidalyde, and any other failure), I have to say "welcome to science." This is how science works. You make an observation, you form a question, you devise a hypothesis/prediction, you perform an experiment, you perform analysis, you come to a conclusion. Since science is in a constant state of discovery, the answers do change. To misquote my celebrity boyfriend, "If science knew everything, it would stop."

Janiece, you've handled these crackpots quite well, and I have little to add to your rebuttal.

However, there are a couple of statements made by both chrisb and mayluella that I simply cannot allow to pass unchallenged.

Chrisb said: oncology is largely a complete and utter failure.

Wrong. Utterly wrong. Provably wrong. And more wrong every day.

Prove your statement, ChrisB. If your anecdotal leukemia story is to be believed, then Oncology 30 years failed you. But in the 30 years since, oncology, through use of tools like the scientific method and standardized mainstream research, has significantly and drastically improved its diagnostic and cure rates. A cancer victim stands a far greater and provable chance of survival and/or life extension than without oncology and modern medical care. This basic fact alone disproves your ridiculous assertion. What's more, this proof is consistent and repeatable.

In the same 30 years, the "cure" rate for alternative medicine and practices has changed not one damned iota. Again, this is provable and repeatable. And in fact, alt medicine has only a slightly better cure rate than prayer, witch doctors, and doing absolutely nothing.

mayluella said: I know of people diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer alive three years later using alternative means. This is an impossibility with standard medicine.

Prove it. Prove that those people would have died at the hands of modern medicine. Prove it. Prove that people don't recover with modern medicine. Your statement is complete crap and demonstrates faulty logic and poor cognitive ability.

It is these kinds of sweeping generalizations, poor logic, and anecdotes substituted for evidence and repeatable methodology - complete with the "Big Pharma doesn't want the truth known! conspiracy nonsense - that puts both of these commenters clearly in the crackpot category.

Just a single comment, before I drag myself up to bed. Don't you think that if any of these alternative medications and/or treatments actually worked in a randomized, controlled, double blind clinical trial, Big Pharma would be falling all over themselves to bring it to market?

Ok Jim,this thread originally began by this crackpot with reference to pancreatic cancer, so I shall take this as just one example of the "success" of Oncology."Only about 15-20% of pancreatic cancers diagnosed are suitable for surgery, and only 10 to 15 of every 100 people diagnosed are still alive a year later".as reported in The Times on 6th March 2008."The proportion of people surviving pancreatic cancer is very low, and the length of time between diagnosis and death is typically short, at usually less than six months.The most recent data for patients diagnosed in England and Wales show that around 13% of people with pancreatic cancer survive beyond 12 months after diagnosis and only 2-3% beyond five years.Source: Cancer Research UK.

Survival for one year.Sadly, most people are diagnosed with advanced cancer and will have less than a year to live.About 13 in 100 people with pancreas cancer live for one year after they find out they have the disease.Survival for five years.Up to 3 in 100 people who are diagnosed with pancreas cancer are alive five years later.If your cancer is diagnosed earlyThe outlook for people whose cancer is diagnosed early is better than this. If surgery is possible, then about 15 in 100 people will be alive five years later.Source: BMJ April 2009So this represents the "success" of Mainstream Oncology with curing pancreatic cancer.This is in spite of the declared war on cancer over 40 years ago and the billions of dollars spent on finding a cure.Never mind alt's or what you may perceive to be quackery, I am sure that within the very near future alt's will be able to publish their stats/figures on survival for cancer and which are infinitely superior, but are unable to do so as yet and as illustrated by mayluella.Thank you.I hope that none of you who are unfortunate enough to succumb to any form of cancer do not go down the conventional route, but seek out those cancer survivors who have used alt' methods and are not in remission but have actually cured and eradicated their disease permanently.

I am sure that within the very near future alt's will be able to publish their stats/figures on survival for cancer and which are infinitely superior, but are unable to do so as yet and as illustrated by mayluella.

Please come back when that data is available to resume the discussion. Because while I'm sure everyone agrees that Pancreatic Cancer is the worst of the worst, your assertions that alt's survival rate is "infinitely superior" has no proof. So for me, the discussion is OVER.

Janeice,just an example of what you were asking for regarding the Alternative treatment (the Gerson Therapy) on one type of cancer: melanoma.This represents just one alt'therapy which has been hounded and outlawed by the AMA (American Medical Association).

Stage-related 5-year survival rates for adult, Caucasian melanoma patients who used Gerson's therapy are considerably higher than rates reported elsewhere in the melanoma literature. Also, in contrast to the experience of other reporting centers, female and male survival rates were equal in regionally metastasized (stage III) melanoma. These outcomes suggest a possible direction for broader clinical investigations.

I suggest you study the entire article and of course reach your own conclusions.http://gerson-research.org/docs/HildenbrandGLG-1995-1/

About Me

I am a Hot Chick living in Castle Rock, CO with my fabulous family. We have a rescue dog named "Jackson," and she's a Basenji/Shepherd mix. She's something of a head case, but we love her. I'm a U.S. Navy vet, and I currently work as an Enterprise Solutions Architect, specializing in VoIP and multimedia contact center design. I care about social justice, libraries, science, the U.S. Constitution and the military. I serve as a Director on our local library's Foundation Board. I'm a tax and spend liberal in a largely red county, but I try not to be stabby about it. I aspire to run faster than I do, and I donate knitted cold weather gear to various charities. Stupidity, cupidity and wanton assholery piss me off, and I'm more than a little soft when it comes to dogs and those who serve others. I blog about whatever I feel like. I use foul language, so if that sort of thing offends you, feel free to fuck off now - if I'm unwilling to clean up my language for my fabulous Great Auntie Margie, I'm unlikely to do so for you. Newcomers are welcome here, especially those who disagree with me, but trolling and spamming will be met with the Shovel of Doom™.